site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   3516 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for July 25, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Court opinion:

  • Russell, driving a work van on a road with posted speed of 55 mi/h (90 km/h), approaches a green traffic light from the southwest. The light turns yellow, but Russell thinks he can get past it before it turns red, so he does not stop. Christopher, sitting in a work truck at the same intersection's northwest traffic light, sees the lights starting to change and decides to enter the intersection early, while he still has a red light. Russell attempts to swerve his van around Christopher's truck (without braking), but the van collides with the truck anyway (hard enough to spin the truck around by 180 degrees) and thence careens into Jasmine's car, which is in the process of stopping at the northeast traffic light. Three of Jasmine's limbs are broken in the crash. Accordingly, she sues Russell and Christopher for causing her injuries through negligence. The jury decides that (1) the injuries are worth 3.5 M$ and (2) Russell bears 60 percent of the fault (2.1 M$) and Christopher 40 percent (1.4 M$).

  • Russell argues that the jury's decision to assign more fault to him than to Christopher is unsupportable by the evidence presented at trial, since Christopher broke the law (by running the red light) and Russell did not (by attempting to get through the intersection on a yellow light). But the trial judge rejects this argument, and the appeals panel affirms. Under state law as distilled in the charge issued by the trial judge to the jury, a driver approaching a yellow light "is obligated to exercise reasonable care, which includes making reasonable observations for traffic traveling on an intersecting street".* Therefore, the jury was perfectly entitled to conclude that a non-negligent driver (1) would have stopped at the yellow light rather than trying to get through it or (2) would have tried to avoid hitting Christopher by braking rather than by swerving without braking.

*See also the following model jury charges, which unlike this case-specific charge have been approved by a statewide committee: general duty of motorist; duty of motorist to make observations; and duty of motorist proceeding past stop sign.

People in my area run reds all the time, but I never saw people try to beat the green like this except in Puerto Rico.

It's nearly impossible to "make observations" for cross traffic when you're traveling at 55mph and the vegetation blocks line of sight to the traffic in question.

There does not appear to be vision-blocking vegetation at this particular intersection.

This tree seems to block much of the road behind the light on the right.

https://postimg.cc/McGZvDyV

It would be hard to notice a car until you are almost in the intersection.

That visibility seems pretty good to me. Remember that you're looking out only for cars that suddenly start moving after being stopped at the stop line, not for fast-moving cars. Also, note that the 55-mi/h road is NJ 54, while Jackson Road, at which you're looking, has a posted speed of 45 mi/h.

I wasn't aware there were states which didn't require the driver to stop at a yellow. Wisconsin does (and that is where I learned to drive), so as I read your story I was thinking "duh, of course he was more at fault, it's already illegal to enter the intersection when the light is yellow". One of the edge cases where road laws across states aren't quite the same, I guess.

What? It’s very obviously not illegal to enter an intersection with a yellow light. The light changes from green to yellow with no warning. There are situations where it is physically impossible to brake that fast. I assume you mean “when safe?” But that gives a lot of cover to the defendant.

I’m personally more familiar with the implicit law, which is that yellows are timed such that they stay on long enough for drivers going a reasonable speed to come to a complete stop while braking comfortably before it goes red. So when the light changes, you either don’t have enough time to brake comfortably and smoothly pass the yellow before it turns, have enough time to stop and do so, or break the law by either running a red or jam on the gas to get through - which is, of course, both speeding and reckless driving.

Reading the opinion, Russell was driving above the 55mph speed limit. I’ll allow that his speed was more like 70 than it was 60. He was apparently 200ish feet from the intersection when he noticed the yellow. If so, that’s on the order of 2 seconds to come to a complete stop, unless I’m doing my math wrong. 55 gives you another half second. That’s a slam on the brakes situation, not a reasonable halt. At that point, it seems like either Russell was derelict in not watching for the light until too late, or else he could not stop safely even at the posted limit when the light turned and was totally in his rights to proceed. I’m surprised this doesn’t show up in the opinion. Were they expecting him to burn rubber because it flicked yellow?

@ToaKraka ‘s summary is outright incorrect in one place, in fact, and the truth makes the situation even more redeeming for Russell. The summary says that Jasmine was stopping at the red. The opinion says that SHE WAS ENTERING THE INTERSECTION BECAUSE SHE DID NOT BELIEVE SHE COULD STOP SAFELY, and at time of the crash, was ABOUT TO ENTER THE INTERSECTION (presumably yellow at the time). So why is Russell more at fault here for entering an intersection which the plaintiff was herself entering even later? Reading the opinion, they keep talking about the plaintiff being a young mother and go into great detail on the injuries. I suspect that’s the reason, and perhaps also that they didn’t expect the ex-con who actually caused the crash to be able to pay a cent.

If I were on this jury I’d probably hang it. This looks a hell of a lot like a miscarriage of justice to me. The appeal court, I judge less strongly. They’re right to defer heavily to the jury. But putting 60% on Russell seems crazy. Splitting in reverse would make more sense. But given that the appellate opinion states that the decision hinges in part on the fact that Russell did not testify mitigating factors like whether he considered whether he could stop safely, I wonder whether this whole mess is just the product of a lawyer gap between the parties.

EDIT: spent a minute looking at car crash videos to try and gauge how fast Russell might have been traveling in order to absolutely crush the woman’s car. Assuming he was traveling at 70 and lost half of his momentum hitting the truck, he and she would have collided at a combined speed of 80mph. 55mph crashes with a stationary object are enough to start compromising the cabin. 80 is, as far as I can tell, kill you dead territory. Bringing this down to 70 would probably still be enough. So I’m not sure that the prosecution’s assertion that he must have been driving in safely holds water. But of course that’s right back to the question of whether the lawyers brought proper receipts on the basic math here. Messy stuff, honestly makes highway driving sound a lot less appealing.

I have no idea why you are nitpicking me so hard over the fact I didn't say "when safe". Yes, of course it's when safe. But the same is true for a red light too. You aren't expected to stop the instant a light turns red, because that would be impossible and unsafe in some situations. Yet I don't think you would nitpick someone for saying "it's illegal to enter the intersection when the light is red", because everyone understands the "if it's safe to stop" implication. So don't nitpick me for using similar language about yellow lights, it's a weirdly isolated demand for rigor.

You absolutely are supposed to be stopped for a red, though, aren’t you? That’s the whole point of the yellow. It gives you time to safely stop. Under what circumstances could a light turn red without warning you? Are we positing a small-town setup with a red light camera set up to fleece outsiders with an unacceptably short yellow? I’m pretty confident that “I was going too fast/braked too late to stop at the red” would not win anyone’s favor, and “it’s illegal to enter an intersection on a red” is simply true (outside of right on red, which has nothing to do with the case at hand).

I don’t think this is nitpicking. First you’re saying yellows are a hard requirement to stop, then you’re saying reds aren’t. This is completely the opposite of my experience and understanding of the law and is utterly baffling to me. And it’s pretty germane to the top-level post here, so it’s far from isolated, it’s the whole point of your post!

I thought cruising throughout yellows was the norm and legal. I'm sure state laws have some point about doing safely and before it turns red.

See response here.

The norm yes, but certainly not legal in my home state. There, you are required to stop for the yellow if you are able to.

I've only ever been in one accident, and it was because I stopped at the yellow when I shouldn't have.

It was the middle of winter, and the roads were very icy. I was late noticing the yellow, and I slammed on the brakes. I was able to just barely stop before entering the intersection: but the person behind me was not so lucky, and rear ended me. Technically she was at fault, but I know it was my bad. You can't expect someone to stop that fast on slippery roads, I should have just gone through.

I've been in a similar situation (though no accident thankfully), and like you it taught me the importance of discerning whether you can safely stop at the yellow. It was when I was still in Wisconsin, and like in your example the roads were icy. I tried to brake for the yellow far too late, but instead I just slid through the intersection. Thankfully there wasn't any cross traffic to hit me due to my mistake, though my passenger (my boss at the time) did scold me for trying to stop so late when I should've known it was unsafe to do that in winter.

IIRC, a while ago I read a court opinion where a person was severely injured by a snowplow truck that slid through an intersection like that. <del>(I unfortunately do not have the link on hand.)</del><ins>Link</ins>

I wasn't aware there were states which didn't require the driver to stop at a yellow.

Both New Jersey and Wisconsin require a motorist approaching a yellow light to stop if he can do so safely. However, this overview of state laws appears to indicate that there are quite a few states that do not have this requirement.

Interesting that NJ does have that law. Why did the judge instruct the jury as you indicated in your post, then, rather than saying that the law requires a driver to stop if able to do so safely? That seems like it would be more clear-cut as to wrongdoing.

That law was part of the jury charge as well. See p. 16 of the PDF.

But the trial judge rejects this argument, and the appeals panel affirms.

I've said this before, but judges see a victim who needs compensation and look around for the nearest involved party with money. They then uses legalese as a backwards rationalisation for the award.

In this case the judge probably realised that neither party likely could afford to pay the 3 million alone, so decided to split it over the two of them.

In work vehicles? They would have been insured commercially. Neither will work again(at fault accidents are a killer for driving a commercial vehicle), but both insurance policies have the money.

I missed that part. Commercial insurance coverage should be enough by a single party to cover this so I don't know why the judge went out of their way to punish the yellow light driver.

That’s insane.

I’m always going on yellow. On an incredibly rare occasion the light turns red exactly as I head into the intersection.

This is perfectly logical and I assumed legal.

It’s either go on yellow or slam my brakes.

"is obligated to exercise reasonable care, which includes making reasonable observations for traffic traveling on an intersecting street".

That makes zero sense. Unless you’re literally running the red light - short of slamming your brakes so hard that you’re burning rubber, this doesn’t make sense.

It's illegal to be in the intersection when the light is red.

Incorrect (in this state).

NJ Statutes tit. 39 ch. 4 § 105:

Amber, or yellow, when shown alone following green[,] means traffic[ is] to stop before entering the intersection or nearest crosswalk, unless when the amber appears the vehicle or street car is so close to the intersection that with suitable brakes it cannot be stopped in safety.

Nothing is said about exiting the intersection before the light turns red.

§ 67:

No vehicle or street car shall be permitted by the owner or driver thereof to so occupy a street as to interfere with or interrupt the passage of other street cars or vehicles, nor shall the driver of a vehicle or street car drive such vehicle or street car into an intersection if preceding traffic prevents immediate clearance of the intersection.

That means a motorist must exit the intersection before any other light turns green, not before his light turns red. A traffic signal normally will have an all-red clearance interval of two or three seconds, so the difference between these two definitions is far from negligible.

You're right, and I was mistaken about my state too.

The jury was perfectly entitled to conclude that a non-negligent driver (1) would have stopped at the yellow light rather than trying to get through it or (2) would have tried to avoid hitting Christopher by braking rather than by swerving without braking.

Entering an intersection on a yellow light is legal (in this state). But failing to brake when you have a yellow light and someone else illegally runs a red light in front of you may count as negligence.

Also, in this case, Russell specifically admitted that he didn't even consider whether he could safely stop at the yellow light.

Also, in this case, Russell specifically admitted that he didn't even consider whether he could safely stop at the yellow light.

Yeah it's more a case for "don't talk to cops" or at least "know what the law really says and don't openly admit to breaking it" which sometimes works OK for traffic cops.

"I was really close to the intersection as the light changed and didn't think I could safely stop in time, so I proceeded into the intersection at my current legal speed" is all you should ever say about entering an intersection on a yellow; "IDK IT ALL HAPPENED SO FAST OMG I CAN'T EVEN" would possibly be even better if you think you can pull it off.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats